[HN Gopher] Paddle announces iOS IAP alternative that avoids App...
___________________________________________________________________
Paddle announces iOS IAP alternative that avoids Apple's 30% fees
Author : pimterry
Score : 178 points
Date : 2021-10-07 10:00 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (paddle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (paddle.com)
| dmitrygr wrote:
| "Access to customer email "
|
| Hard pass from me. Thanks.
| syspec wrote:
| Not sure how this would work.
|
| Apple is still entitled to a 30% commission. The commission is
| the licensing fee for Apple's IP
|
| From the court ruling:
|
| > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less
| restrictive alternative for Apple's use of IAP based on the
| current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is
| that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way
| "the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP." This
| proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons:
|
| > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of
| facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing
| fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property.
|
| > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a
| commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for
| Apple to collect that commission
|
| > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate
| chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the
| Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation
| for use of its intellectual property.
| ericyan wrote:
| I am also skeptical about their claim for taking care of tax
| management.
|
| I had contacted Paddle for UK VAT invoice for our Setapp for
| Teams subscription and their incompetence is phenomenon: first
| they used an EU VAT number (this is post-Brexit), then they fixed
| the VAT number but the amounts are in the wrong currency, one of
| the support agents even get my name wrong once...
|
| Most importantly, I should not even have to ask for a VAT invoice
| in the first place.
| mikevm wrote:
| Unfortunately, they're the best alternative to Stripe in
| countries where Stripe is not supported.
| cr3ative wrote:
| Rather on-the-nose that the first differentiating point is
| "access to customer data".
| [deleted]
| bengale wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Personally,
| if you bounce me out of the app to some random payment page I'll
| close it and delete the app.
| yholio wrote:
| It's funny you should say that, since it's exactly what Apple
| feels too. I'm grabbing my popcorn and anxiously wait to see
| how a 200 employee startup can take the bone away for a world
| class super-monopoly.
| infinityplus1 wrote:
| Apple might still collect its 30% by asking for accounting
| records later.
| towawy wrote:
| There is way to little talk about this. Apple might still be
| entitled to the 30% (of gross purchase price paid by the
| customer) even if the developer is not using the IAP mechanism.
| The ruling did nothing to invalidate that.
| Aeolun wrote:
| They're not doing that for existing apps though. It's going
| to be a bit hard to enforce.
| [deleted]
| Danieru wrote:
| Apple would be playing with fire if they attempt that
| interpretation. It would detooth the ruling, and could force
| the judges hand to impose stricter or more vague
| requirements. The judge certainly not have an issue with the
| api design...
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| The judge outright said this was ok:
|
| "In such a hypothetical world, developers could potentially
| avoid the commission while benefitting from Apple's
| innovation and intellectual property free of charge. The
| Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may
| rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit
| developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its
| commissions, among other methods. Of course, any
| alternatives to IAP (including the foregoing) would
| seemingly impose both increased monetary and time costs to
| both Apple and the developers."
| Danieru wrote:
| Wow, that's insane. She really did give a toothless
| ruling.
|
| Thanks for correcting me.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| It's not insane, there's simply no reason for why Apple
| shouldn't get their cut.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Microsoft doesn't get a cut from Windows apps. Why should
| Apple?
| threeseed wrote:
| Microsoft is definitely the anomaly.
|
| Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Google, Valve, Epic etc all
| take their cut.
| wayneftw wrote:
| ...and the fact that everybody is doing it makes it good
| and right, right?
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| Why are you comparing iOS to Windows? MacOS to Windows,
| or iOS to Android make more sense.
|
| A more fair comparison would be andorid. Or the Windows
| Phone, where Microsoft took 20%:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone
| Aeolun wrote:
| I'm comparing a small general purpose computer to a big
| one. How is that an invalid comparison?
|
| Just because everyone does the same thing on a mobile
| phone doesn't make it any more sensible.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Microsoft chose to create Windows as an open platform
| where they didn't get a cut of application sales.
|
| Microsoft chose to create XBox as a platform where
| developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell
| software.
|
| Microsoft attempted to convert Windows into a platform
| where developers who didn't pay them a cut could not sell
| software with Windows RT, but it failed in the
| marketplace.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| Because it's a cherry picked example that ignores a lot
| of factors.
|
| I could easily make the statement "Microsoft gets a cut
| of everything purchased on Xbox, why shouldn't Apple?"
|
| To which I suspect your response would be waving your
| hands around something that is ill defied (General
| Purpose Computing), and then trying to define it to fit
| your narrative.
| roflc0ptic wrote:
| A more cogent and principled response would be that there
| is an effective duopoly in the phones market, and this
| creates incentives for and actually realized anti
| competitive practices on the part of both google and
| apple. Apple both builds a market and regulates that
| market in its own favor, and consumers don't have an
| especially plausible alternative to participating.
| Danieru wrote:
| Hey FDSGSG I see you used my comment to implement your
| reply. As you no doubt know my API usage policy is 30% of
| your gross.
|
| Note, you cannot deduct the 30% your electric utility
| charges you, nor the 30% your PC monitor maker charges
| you, nor the 30% your desk maker charges, you'll have to
| figure out how to finance your development out of the
| other -40%.
|
| If this is not acceptable obviously you could have
| written your reply to my comment under any other comment.
| There are many other comments you could freely leave your
| reply to me under. You choose to use my comment to base
| your reply to no doubt because that's the only one I
| read. Still of course, I do not have a monopoly on
| replies to me under all posts on the internet. Replies
| under my comment are of course not a monopoly because you
| can freely reply to me anywhere else. For example, you
| could have replied to my post on your grandma's Facebook.
| worrycue wrote:
| It's less that it's toothless and more that Apple won the
| case - she ruled 9/10 counts in Apple's favour.
| soapdog wrote:
| I see people here talking badly about Paddle highlighting that
| access to customer data is a feature. I think that many here
| don't realise that without customer data, they are not your
| customers. They're Apple customers. If you decide to move away
| from the App Store, or launch a product elsewhere, you have no
| way of contacting them.
|
| I'm not in the business of selling apps, but I enjoy writing
| books. The best way to sell books, is to build a mailing list of
| fans so that you can reach them when you have another book ready.
| It is not about reaching people who do not want to receive your
| comms. It is about having a direct and reliable connection to
| people who actually want to engage with you.
|
| There is no easy way to do that in the App Store. It is important
| that people own their own platform, that includes being able to
| know who your customers are.
|
| I'm not saying to spam people who purchased stuff from you with
| upsells, that is B.S. and I hate it as much as everyone else. But
| being able to reach out to them when there is a new version of an
| app, or something useful to say about whatever they purchased is
| valuable.
|
| The hardest thing this day is not how to build a great app or how
| to write a great book. Our main challenge is getting noticed amid
| all the algorithmic shenanigans. Being blind about who purchase
| your stuff just adds more friction to that challenge.
| jasode wrote:
| _> , but I enjoy writing books. The best way to sell books, is
| to build a mailing list of fans so that you can reach them when
| you have another book ready. It is not about reaching people
| who do not want to receive your comms. It is about having a
| direct and reliable connection to people who actually want to
| engage with you._
|
| I have a friend who is a voracious reader of Kindle ebooks. She
| uses Amazon's tools to "follow" certain authors and get
| notified by any new releases. Yes, she has visited some
| authors' websites directly and even though they have the
| aggressive popup for _" sign up for my mailing list"_, she
| deliberately avoids submitting her email and having a direct
| relationship with the author.
|
| She'd be one of the buyers that's _" really Amazon's customer"_
| instead of soapdog's customer. But being shielded from you via
| Amazon is what she wants. Have you considered that millions of
| customers think like her?
| soapdog wrote:
| Let me go on a brief tangent about Amazon. First, they are
| very hostile to the author. They force the price down on the
| eBook by leveraging their royalty range. Basically ~75% if
| the book costs up to ~9.99, if the book is more expensive
| than that, you get 35%. This means that the author loses
| money if they price a book higher than 9 bucks but less than
| 20 bucks (these numbers are not exact, treat them as an
| impressionist painting, not a botanical drawing).
|
| An author on Amazon has the option of being exclusive to
| them, which unlocks some perks. Amazon algorithm will push
| exclusives more often then it pushes non-exclusives.
|
| The reason I mentioning this is because Amazon makes it
| harder for the author by disguising all its non-competitive
| practices as them thinking about the reader. It is not, all
| these are vendor lock-in schemes.
|
| There are many other stores for eBooks. Selling on them
| prevents you from being exclusive to Amazon, which in turns
| makes it push your book less often than it pushes those in
| the exclusive program. Trying to price your book higher makes
| you lose money.
|
| Your friend has every right not to be forced into contact
| with an author. That is how it should be. The reason why most
| authors are trying to get your friend on a mailing list is so
| that they can have a platform that is not 100% controlled by
| Amazon algos. It is a hard business being an author, and it
| is much harder if you have no control whatsoever over your
| own platform.
|
| I think that they key aspect I want to highlight here is that
| I don't think your friend or anyone should be put into a
| mailing list against their will. I hate upsells too. What I'm
| saying is that all those platforms make it extra hard for you
| to make sure you can contact the customers who actually want
| to be in contact with you.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| The problem here is that you might consider yourself a good
| actor here; polite, contact your fans only and only rarely with
| what they would consider valuable notifications.
|
| However.
|
| The world is not full of good actors, because bad actors can
| make $$$$ by selling your information to third party spam and
| scammers.
|
| There is no way, currently, to reward good actors, and punish
| bad actors... and the downside of the bad actors _far_ out
| weighs the benefit provided by the good actors.
|
| So, while I see your point, the issue here is that in a _wider
| context_ people are _actively abusing_ that channel, and there
| no way to stop them without stopping everyone.
|
| So, sympathetic, but the problem here isn't apple, it's the
| folk who abuse and resale customer data... and I certainly
| don't have a solution to that; but no one else seems to have
| one either.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| > The best way to sell books, is to build a mailing list of
| fans so that you can reach them when you have another book
| ready
|
| Feel free to put a link to your mailing list at the end of the
| book, and I might sign up. Please don't sign me up because I
| purchase a book from you.
| NhanH wrote:
| Can't you put in a form in your app, stating "Could you please
| give us your email so we can contact you when we have a new
| product?"
|
| Of course, I will never touch that form, and most people won't,
| but that's not because Apple prevent us.
| cma wrote:
| The App Store's abusive rules will not not even let you use a
| collected email opted in to promotions to notify of better
| pricing:
|
| "Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to
| target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing
| methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an
| individual user an email about other purchasing methods after
| that individual signs up for an account within the app)."
|
| You have to flag that user's email in your database as
| permanently tainted and unable to learn certain truths even
| if they have long switched to another competitors' device.
| pimterry wrote:
| Hard to say how their IAP setup will work, but this isn't far
| from how Paddle works for online checkouts today. They
| separately track your customers and your 'audience' - the
| people who tick the 'send me marketing' box during checkout
| (https://paddle.com/support/what-is-paddle-audience/).
|
| Customer emails are available, but it's explicit that they
| haven't opted-in for marketing, so if you're subject to GDPR
| or anything similar (most Paddle vendors, since I think the
| EU is Paddle's core market) then you can't use the email for
| anything but necessary account setup & support. Meanwhile
| audience emails are explicitly fair game for
| upsells/offers/etc.
| onphonenow wrote:
| This is what gdpr gets wrong. Tons of popups and
| notifications you shouldn't use email or cookies for x -
| but sellers collect them and WILL abuse them - apple u
| avoid this issue by simply not giving the seller your info
| meepmorp wrote:
| I see you missing the point here. As a consumer, I don't want
| to be your customer.
|
| When I buy stuff at the grocery store, I'm not the customer of
| the companies that produce food. Similarly, I just want to get
| your app, not become a marketing target for dozens of software
| vendors with varying privacy and data retention policies. I
| don't want you to upsell me on anything, it's literally the
| opposite of friendly to me as a consumer.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Then why buy something from them at all? I don't want spam as
| much as the next person, but the people I pay money are least
| likely to spam me.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| That's not true at all. Psychologically speaking, you're
| more likely to spend money with a company that you've
| already spent money with in the past. It's exactly that
| sentiment that marketers try to take advantage of.
| prepend wrote:
| Through the Apple App Store they are not able to spam me.
|
| I don't get any spam from Apple either.
|
| I want to buy things and not be bothered by follow up
| emails and whatnot.
| [deleted]
| soapdog wrote:
| That is what I said. It is not about upselling stuff for
| those who do not want it. It is about making it easier to
| connect with people who do. This makes sense for some
| situations but not for others. The grocery shop example you
| mentioned is great, I agree with you there. People who don't
| want to be contacted, should not be contacted.
|
| I'm not saying that the way Paddle implemented it is the
| correct way forward. Personally, I'd rather there was an opt-
| in option to share data on the payment form. This way, if you
| want to be in contact with the seller, you can flag it and
| the default option is not sharing. This is simple and would
| allow you to remain "not a customer" while letting those who
| want to be in touch to have an easy path forward. This is not
| possible inside the App Store.
|
| The App Store model --and Amazon and others as well-- make it
| really hard for you to find who the customer is. That is not
| because they're thinking of you. They're doing that as yet
| another vendor lock-in mechanism to prevent the seller from
| leaving or doing any kind of business with that customer away
| from them.
|
| As ~NhanH said in another comment in this thread, you can put
| a form on an app. Yes, you can jump through a lot of hops,
| and maybe Apple will allow it through. It is death by a
| thousand paper cuts. From their PoV it is their customer, not
| yours. From their PoV, the seller is a customer as well.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't want to hear a
| single peep out of a company that manufactures a product I
| bought. I don't want to be "connected". I don't want to
| know when their next great thing is available. I don't care
| what the manufacturer thinks is a really useful, totally
| non-spam message for me. I don't want that relationship at
| all.
|
| Maybe others are less dogmatic about it, but I truly
| appreciate having Apple as a "connection shield" between me
| and hundreds of thirsty app developers wanting to reach out
| and tell me all the great things they want to tell me.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| I feel like responsible people (such as yourself) have a
| hard time seeing that the problem is that the vast majority
| of people are not responsible and will happily abuse my
| information.
|
| I don't think Apple is necessarily altruistic here. But I
| am able to essentially use them to protect me against
| people who will abuse my information.
|
| And I also think that developers miss the fact that, at
| least for a lot of us, this model makes it MORE likely that
| we will purchase your product. I'm much more likely to try
| a new app out knowing that it's not going to generate a ton
| of emails or that my credit card information will leak.
| mhh__ wrote:
| There are more than one grocery stores, but there's only one
| app store. The point is valid, but I'm not sure if it's the
| whole story.
| northerdome wrote:
| I thought this way until I realized I personally value
| portability over simplicity of signup. Most apps I use often
| I use on my phone and laptop. When I had an iPhone, I ran
| most subscriptions through IAP. As soon as I wanted to try
| Android, moving everything over was nearly impossible.
|
| For most services I now sign up directly through a developer.
| I also find for services I subscribe to developers provide
| WAY better customer support than Apple.
| Angostura wrote:
| >I'm not in the business of selling apps, but I enjoy writing
| books. The best way to sell books, is to build a mailing list
| of fans so that you can reach them when you have another book
| ready.
|
| No thanks. That's what I use book stores (either physical or
| electronic for)
| nmcfarl wrote:
| I have a very hard time keeping track of when my favorite
| authors have released a new book, primarily as I do not trust
| Amazon/Goodreads. And no one else (electronic) can reliably
| notify me about this. Heck Kobo, Powell's etc, can't even
| reliably show books by authors they know I read on their
| websites.
|
| (Also it's hours in a car to the nearest physical new book
| store.)
| [deleted]
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why should Apple or anyone get a percentage? Let me pay at cost
| plus a fixed fee.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Why should Apple or anyone get a percentage?
|
| Because it's progressive to do so.
| bottled_poe wrote:
| I think you may be living in the 90s. The global population has
| decided what their privacy and autonomy is worth. An individual
| cannot move the needle.
| xuki wrote:
| Sure, roll your own payment system.
| rahoulb wrote:
| Why should someone who is making $100 revenue off a transaction
| pay the same fee as me who's making $1 revenue?
| endisneigh wrote:
| Because the costs do not scale with the revenue
| mafriese wrote:
| they do - the first 1m$ only cost 15% - It's btw the same
| with the Google Play Store
| endisneigh wrote:
| The fees scale with revenue - what I'm saying is that
| Apple's own costs do not scale with the revenue they take
| from companies on the app store.
|
| e.g. A single transaction of $10,000 does not Apple more
| than $100 other than the beforementioned financial
| transaction fee.
| rahoulb wrote:
| How do you know their costs don't scale? Maybe there's
| insurance or compliance requirements that also apply?
|
| And it begs the question - is "cost-plus" the only valid
| pricing model?
| endisneigh wrote:
| Why would their costs scale with revenue? Cost+ certainly
| isn't the only valid model. Many people are fine with a
| 30% cut.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| The real question isn't why they deserve 30% lots of people
| have plenty of arguments about why they believe it's justified
| because they provide the hardware and dev tools on iOS.
|
| The real question is why I don't have to pay them 30% for
| software and transactions on my MacBook. Because once you
| consider that most of those arguments are thrown out.
| dragandj wrote:
| "Provide" is a bit vague word for "sell". They _sell_ their
| hardware and force the developers to use their tools.
| mikevm wrote:
| But you already pay them $99/year for a dev account... why do
| you have to pay them for every purchase as well?
| leodriesch wrote:
| $99/y is really nothing compared to the 30% cut when you
| look at companies like Epic or Supercell.
|
| I'm certain that they could not continue to provide the App
| Store in its current form without any fee.
| mafriese wrote:
| Because the 99$/year are for the dev platform and the
| 15%/30% cut are for using the infrastructure needed for in
| app purchases.
| rockbruno wrote:
| I don't mind the 30% at all, I just mind that I'm _forced_ to
| because they banned the creation of any and all alternatives.
| The fact that someone would need to build their own phone +
| OS just to avoid a fee is both hilarious and scary
| seanwilson wrote:
| I use Paddle for taking payments for a paid Chrome extension
| (https://www.checkbot.io/) and they've been great with me. The
| big draw was the "tax management" feature where they take care of
| EU VAT and other complicated country specific tax regulations,
| unlike say Stripe and Chargebee. It makes tax returns really
| straightforward where all you have to process is the 12 monthly
| payments Paddle send you each year e.g. over the worst case of
| having to register for VAT in multiple countries and risk making
| tax mistakes. Their 5% + 0.50 cent fees are high (lower than
| FastSring though) but there's value in simplifying your admin
| especially if you're a solo founder.
|
| Related to the comments about Paddle giving you the email
| addresses of your users: I went with Paddle over integrated
| Google payments at the time because Google gave you no access to
| your paid users or their payment methods and I was worried about
| Google payments shutting down - this turned out to be a great
| choice when Google deprecated their Chrome payment features with
| minimal migration options ("There is no way to bulk export your
| existing user licenses, so you need to have your users help with
| this part of the migration").
|
| Not predicting Apple would do this but you need to keep your
| options open where you can so you can keep your customers if the
| worst happens. 30% fees is crazy in comparison too.
| pimterry wrote:
| I'm a Paddle vendor too, and they have been good! As a solo EU
| founder, having to do near zero accountancy is a huge deal that
| Stripe can't (currently) offer.
|
| That said, I wish they'd improve their API. It's very limited,
| poorly designed in some places and extraordinarily slow in
| others. The checkout & tools are good enough that you can
| ignore it for a long time, but eventually you want to integrate
| with it and it's a massive pain.
|
| Definitely the worst part of the product, and simultaneously
| the best thing about Stripe, which does occasionally tempt me
| to jump ship...
| seanwilson wrote:
| > It's very limited, poorly designed in some places and
| extraordinarily slow in others.
|
| Which parts? I do remember the docs being quite sparse when I
| was doing the initial integration. Most of my support
| questions about "how do you do X with the API?" were answered
| quickly but the answer was often "you can't" for a few
| surprising things (like grabbing a subscription via email
| lookup but maybe this has changed). Saying that, once I had
| it set up I haven't had to touch it and haven't had any
| issues, but my needs aren't that complex. A basic portal to
| let users check and edit their subscriptions would be nice
| though instead of everyone having to build this themselves.
| myspy wrote:
| I'm not sure if that pro Paddle list is good for me as a
| customer. The access to my data at least isn't.
| [deleted]
| jasode wrote:
| _> Access to customer data See customers' emails, so you can
| communicate with them for upsells, offers and product news._
|
| As a _seller_ , you understandably want that valuable buyer info.
|
| But as a _customer_ , I'd deliberately avoid Paddle to keep my
| privacy and avoid spam. If anyone thinks that Paddle's 10% fee
| might mean the final in-app purchase price would be lower which
| would make it worth the tradeoff to give my data, I'm not so sure
| about that since an interpretation of the ruling still gives
| Apple the right to get 30% via Paddle:
| https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/14/apple-can-still-charge-its-ap...
|
| If anyone thinks getting a % of someone else's payment stream is
| unusual, consider how the "360" record label deals[1] with
| musicians are structured. All the musician's revenue (CDs,
| streaming, t-shirts) regardless of payment method (box office or
| website selling tshirts) is split with the record label. Why is
| that "unfair" situation even possible?!? _Because the musician
| signed a contract agreeing to the revenue split._
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal
| jonplackett wrote:
| > But as a customer, I'd deliberately avoid Paddle to keep my
| privacy and avoid spam.
|
| I thought the same initially - but come on, this is the
| situation when you buy anything from anywhere else except the
| AppStore and we all get on with it just fine. You just decide
| if you trust the seller or not and block their emails if
| they're annoying.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Saying that - I just received an email from Apple reminding
| me that two of my subscriptions are coming up in a month and
| letting me know i could cancel them before that - so there
| are big benefits to having someone in your corner, in the
| middle.
| echelon wrote:
| Do you hate your subscriptions that much? And love Apple
| like your mother?
|
| This is like Jeff Bezos is sending you letters asking which
| small business you'd like to deny rent money to this month.
|
| He's cackling in the background knowing you're paying him
| and that it makes his ecosystem stronger to rope everyone
| into it and pit them all in evolutionary battles to the
| death.
| dang wrote:
| Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments,
| fulminating, and posting flamewar comments to HN? We ban
| accounts that do this sort of thing and you do it a lot.
| That's not cool. I don't want to ban you but we've had to
| ask you this many times already, and at some point the
| slack is going to run out. Please read the rules and
| stick to them:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| moate wrote:
| No it isn't. It's like Apple asking you if you want to
| keep paying for a service you voluntarily signed yourself
| up for. You can set your own calendar reminders about
| subscriptions you may not want in perpetuity, but it's
| entirely on the small business to keep me as a customer.
|
| Let's not pretend that the "poor small guys" don't
| sometimes use subscription models with automatic renewal
| specifically because they're hoping people will keep
| paying them after the product is no longer useful because
| they forget to cancel their service. This is a known dark
| pattern I've seen complained about everywhere (including
| here).
| oauea wrote:
| I _want_ sellers to be able to reach me when I buy from them.
| If something goes wrong, or something happens, it is
| absolutely essential that they are able to contact _me_.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Having had an app in the top #10 for a year or so, I can
| say this is very important, and very difficult with the
| current model.
|
| Them contacting you isn't the issue though, you can put
| that in the app - but if you want to contact them because
| you messed something up, much harder.
|
| Another annoyance is refunds. Sometimes you just want to
| refund someone. Maybe because you messed up somehow, or
| just to be nice. All you can do is send them to beg apple
| for one which makes for crap customer service.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| That's why Apple's proxy system is a good solution. Sellers
| can get in contact with you, but don't have your real email
| address.
| oauea wrote:
| No, that lets the sellers contact apple who may or may
| not choose to forward the message to me. I want the
| sellers to contact me, since I'm doing business with
| them. What happens when apples proxy server goes down, or
| they start charging money for it? Very problematic for
| everyone involved if apple can keep the contact
| information of your customers hostage.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| It's very problematic for _businesses_ 365 days a year,
| yes -- but for your customers, it's problematic no more
| than 1 day a year at most. And that is a huge win for us
| customers.
| jasode wrote:
| _> , this is the situation when you buy anything from
| anywhere else except the AppStore and we all get on with it
| just fine. _
|
| No it isn't in my case because I don't use my Apple email
| anywhere else but Apple. It stays clean with zero spam in the
| inbox. Many services hide email addresses from sellers
| including ebay, Etsy, Craigslist, Amazon, etc.
|
| The key is that the _granularity and quantity_ of managing
| email spam is reduced when all those intermediary platforms
| shield customer email addresses. I do have my own email
| domain and I can create throwaway email addresses which I use
| with many other websites but that 's irrelevant if Apple
| decided to share my email with App Store developers.
|
| _> You just decide if you trust the seller or not and block
| their emails if they're annoying._
|
| Why would I want the additional "mental tax" and decision
| tree of trust/distrust potential seller and then do _extra
| digital housekeeping_ of blocking future spam? I 'm still not
| paying any less (the court ruling said Apple is still
| entitled to 30% even with non-Apple payments) -- so what
| exactly do I gain? It looks like Paddle offers more benefits
| the seller but no compelling advantages to the buyer.
| omnimus wrote:
| Paddle is not two way marketplace like ebay. It's a payment
| gateway focused on digital products. It's like Stripe and
| it's even harder to get in to use paddle because there are
| human checks where you have to prove what you are selling
| is allowed.
|
| What companies do with the emails is... up to them. But
| that goes for any payment processor.
| habitue wrote:
| There's a world where I imagine apple tries to compete here,
| and says "yes, you pay a bit more through apple, but we don't
| give away your email address" etc, etc. Consumers could vote
| with their wallet what they care about.
|
| In practice, my bet is that Apple uses their opaque app
| approval process and ability to change the rules at any time to
| make it arbitrarily hard for apps that use paddle to stay in
| the app store.
| rsanek wrote:
| I don't know if I'd characterize a price that's 10-25% more
| expensive than the alternative as just "a bit more."
| alin23 wrote:
| I'm using Paddle for my MacOS app, Lunar (https://lunar.fyi)
| and in my opinion they are serious enough about privacy.
|
| For example when you buy a license you are by default opted-out
| of marketing or update emails [0]
|
| And the upsell feature isn't functional by default for
| everyone, you need to contact them to discuss a "moving
| upmarket" strategy. [1]
|
| [0] https://cln.sh/llVLV2
|
| [1] https://cln.sh/6lqYc1
| drcongo wrote:
| I used Paddle once, many years ago, with a unique "+"
| address, and still get spam to that address to this day.
| These days I don't buy software if Paddle is the only option.
| I always thought the name Paddle was something to do with the
| flood of spam you can expect.
| alin23 wrote:
| I'd say that's just a bad seller who would have spammed you
| no matter what payment processor you would have gone
| through.
|
| Until now, I've used Stripe, Paypal, Paddle and some local
| Romanian company and all of them provided me the email of
| the customer where it was available.
|
| It's up to the seller to abide by the rules, the platform
| isn't at fault here.
| [deleted]
| admax88qqq wrote:
| The payment processor could have insulated your data. But
| with paddle it sounds like sharing your data with the
| vendor is one of their selling points
| drcongo wrote:
| Unrelated spam from thousands of "companies".
|
| > I'd say that's just a bad seller who would have spammed
| you no matter what payment processor you would have gone
| through.
|
| Except, of course, it has NEVER happened with the
| thousands of apps I've bought through Apple's official
| stores. Not once.
| alin23 wrote:
| Yes, you won't see that happening when buying on Apple
| app store because they don't share your email.
|
| I was mostly talking about avoiding Paddle as a payment
| processor, the app store isn't a payment processor so we
| can't really compare them.
|
| I'd still say the spam came from a seller sharing your
| address, or leaking it by mistake, not from how Paddle
| works.
|
| If your issue would be Paddle related and recurrent, I
| don't think they would still be in the business as trust
| is very important when handling money and customer data
| and soon no one would choose them anymore.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| The fundamental issue here is that developers, at scale,
| cannot be trusted. You can trust specific ones to do the
| right thing but you can't trust them all. Apple sees
| themselves as responsible for protecting all of their
| customers from this reality. Others call them
| "gatekeepers". The example here is sharing an email
| address with developers. There are other examples like
| "no background processes". Developers hate this becuase
| they see _themselves_ as trustworthy but the reality
| still stands: developers at scale cannot be trusted to do
| the right thing.
|
| Now let me add my opinion on this: Should we have a
| platform that allows consumers to make a single choice
| ie) choose Apple, and by proxy never needs to trust
| developers at scale? Absolutely. Many people, especially
| developers, would rather trade some developer flexibility
| (multiple payment processors) and push some
| responsibility onto Apple's users to continue making an
| opt-in choice for Apple. I choose them for my phone. I
| just them again for in-app purchases. Continue making
| choices in support of Apple for each layer of the system.
| I am not really sure what this buys the consumer. What is
| Apple blocking from you by forcing you to make that
| choice once, and then being forced to "never trust
| developers at scale" for the remainder of being an iPhone
| customer. Is it blocking "innovation"? Some people think
| that. I don't see it. I see a company that pushes the
| hardware envelope with sensors, battery, operating
| system, etc, and works hard to give developers access to
| THOSE things. Maybe not a users email address, but is
| that really innovation anyway? I looked at this Paddle
| payment processor and they have some things like "pause
| subscription". Is pause really an innovation that is
| being blocked by only using Apple's system? Google has
| supported pause for a long time. Users want it, but to
| developers really want users pausing their subs? probably
| not.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Should we have a platform that allows consumers to
| make a single choice ie) choose Apple, and by proxy never
| needs to trust developers at scale? Absolutely._
|
| I view any attempt at using regulation to prevent or
| block or eliminate this valid choice as the actually
| anti-competitive play.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| 110%. Glad to see someone out there also finds this super
| ironic
| spaceywilly wrote:
| That's the thing though, I use apple IAP in my app and I
| don't have any clue what the user's email is. They keep
| it secret. It's to the point where I actually advertise
| that as a benefit of my app, and people mention it in
| reviews as a reason they chose my app over others. People
| are tired of their information being sold up the river.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I'd say that's just a bad seller who would have
| spammed you no matter what payment processor you would
| have gone through_
|
| Except for Apple who would not have shared my address.
| Bad sellers on the platform is the _platforms_ problem.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Except for Apple who would not have shared my address.
|
| Can you prove this?
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Can you prove this?_
|
| If you implement IAP with Apple's billing system, Apple
| doesn't share your credentials with the seller. There's
| nothing to prove, you can implement it yourself if you
| like.
| smoldesu wrote:
| How does that prove that they aren't retaining or sharing
| that info with others?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| As a user I would say the platform is at fault, because
| the seller shouldn't be trusted with the information.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Spam? Who cares outlook will learn to ditch that in a few
| weeks.
|
| Apple is just another parasite middle man and the defenders are
| sounding like brainwashed fan boys.
| threeseed wrote:
| After I supported an Indiegogo/Kickstarter campaign somehow
| my email has been sold on to other campaigns. I now get
| hundreds of emails a year promoting other campaigns. None of
| which Outlook can block since it's from unique companies and
| all of which I have to manually unsubscribe from.
|
| That kind of spam is insidious and it's just the tip of the
| iceberg for what companies do with your data.
| oauea wrote:
| That is already illegal. Report the companies. Apple has
| absolutely nothing to do with this.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| You can engage in transactions using their proxy service
| so the company the company doesn't get your real email
| address. "Report the companies" to who? Where? I'd rather
| not be in that situation in the first place, it's a huge
| waste of my time.
| oauea wrote:
| So you'd really rather hide behind Apple's goodwill
| instead of simply having the government regulate things,
| as they're already doing? Simply contact the relevant
| watchdog in your country.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| Why would I let someone continuously dump garbage into my
| life while I wait for a government regulator to respond
| to my complaint? I would rather not have the problem in
| the first place.
| pimterry wrote:
| > Access to customer data See customers' emails, so you can
| communicate with them for upsells, offers and product news.
|
| It looks like they've updated the text since this comment. That
| bullet point now says:
|
| > Access to customer email _for support_
|
| > See customers' emails, so you can communicate with them _for
| billing support_.
|
| Harvesting emails from purchases for pure marketing is GDPR-
| dubious at best, and Paddle's main market is the EU (because it
| handles EU VAT in a way that Stripe cannot), so I suspect
| they're backing away from any implication that you could ever
| actually send marketing to IAP customers legally.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| The subscription section also seems wrong. Apple has
| subscription support. I can start and end my subscriptions at
| any time.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > ...deliberately avoid Paddle to keep my privacy...
|
| Can apple still dictate things about the payment systems, even
| if they can't force you to use theirs? As a consumer, I sure
| hope apple forces some kind of privacy standards compliance.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| > Can apple still dictate things about the payment systems,
| even if they can't force you to use theirs?
|
| I read through the decision when it first came down, and
| while Apple was blocked from restricting third-party payment
| systems, there was no language preventing Apple from
| mandating their own payment system alongside third-party
| options.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if Apple dropped their 30% cut for
| their own system, but kept a 30% commission for third-party
| systems.
| gondo wrote:
| How would Apple know the volume charged via 3rd party
| systems?
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Additionally, Paddle is completely ignoring that Apple's 30%
| doesn't _only_ include payments. It includes everything
| required to make those in-app purchases function - hosting,
| downloads, updates, management, reviews, localization, etc. All
| this would mean is that Apple will get to collect that money
| from 2 sources instead of one which complicates the situation
| for both developers _and_ for customers.
|
| Until a judge rules that Apple doesn't have control over its
| own App Store (which the Epic ruling explicitly reaffirmed that
| it does), this is only going to get silly and bloated.
| sneak wrote:
| The hosting, downloads, updates, reviews are all covered
| already by the $99/yr developer fee, because this is what is
| charged for that to free apps without IAPs.
|
| Apple is just using their anticompetitive stance to charge
| 10x more than the standard industry rate for payment card
| processing.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| No it's not... In-app purchases _also_ require hosting,
| download, and update services. The apps themselves do but
| the purchases do also. The $99 /yr only covers the license
| to develop an app.
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm also not comfortable about the sharing of my email AND
| other data. I like using REvolut/Apple pay for this very
| reasons.
|
| Also I don't understand why this is some new kind of company,
| isn't this just another payment gateway like any other ?
|
| Seems they've just branded off the back of the Epic // Apple
| ruling ?
| chipgap98 wrote:
| > Also I don't understand why this is some new kind of
| company, isn't this just another payment gateway like any
| other ?
|
| Paddle is an established company, they've just added a new
| mobile checkout feature.
| bilekas wrote:
| Okay fair enough, so it still doesn't seem that newsworthy
| imo as they will all be doing the same if not already
| NamTaf wrote:
| Precisely. I saw that and was instantly glad Apple is a
| middleman for that particular point. For all their criticisms,
| they seem to be one of the companies that _gets_ that.
|
| If it's a service I use enough to possibly consider an upsell
| opportunity, I'll be aware of that opportunity through
| organically discovering it during my use of the service or
| through broader community discussion regarding the service. In
| all other cases, I don't want unsolicited contact.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Paddle et al. can implement an email forwarder so the emails go
| to user3492@proxy.paddle.com if privacy is truly a concern.
| Plus paddle has arguably much less info on yourself to be
| worried. I don't think the situation with record labels is even
| remotely comparable -- apple & google do very little to help
| devs.
| polote wrote:
| > But as a customer, I'd deliberately avoid Paddle to keep my
| privacy and avoid spam
|
| You make it seems like, this is an issue. But every service
| that you use today has your email, Amazon, your ISP, Apple, ..
| everyone.
|
| If you don't want to receive email, use a secondary email to
| subscribe to services and you will not be annoyed with
| unsolicited emails
| meepmorp wrote:
| Yeah, or we could just keep things exactly the way they are
| and not fuck with it because it's actually better for me as a
| consumer.
| lolpython wrote:
| Paying 30 percent extra is not unilaterally better for the
| consumer.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| It is if I get all the benefits of paying what that 30%
| covers.
| nolok wrote:
| Nope, to take a current exemple which many people loathe for
| one reason or another, even EPIC Games Store does not
| transfer your email to the seller by default, and the
| checkbox do to do so in checkout is left unchecked by
| default.
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| > _" In addition to lower fees, Paddle said benefits of its
| payment system will include access to customer data"_
|
| Blood is in the water, and the sharks are howling.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| I'm kinda baffled by Paddle.
|
| Is this a PR stunt?
|
| Judge explicitly said Apple is allowed to collect their 30%
| commission even if customer uses a different payment provider.
| [deleted]
| chrowe wrote:
| Christian, founder of Paddle here. There are a few things I'd
| like to try and clear up possible misunderstandings around.
|
| Paddle has been a long-term supporter of Mac apps for many years
| (including CleanMyMac, Framer, Tower and more) and we're excited
| about the prospect of supporting iOS apps as well - something
| we've not been able to do so far.
|
| We're heavily invested in keeping customer data safe and secure.
| We think app developers should be able to support and interact
| with their customers directly rather than having to go through
| Apple or another 3rd party to resolve any issues. Our solution
| will give app creators that opportunity - one that's already the
| case for sales made on vendor websites.
|
| Any kind of marketing comms will require customers to have opted
| in through a checkbox in the checkout process. We're just looking
| to give developers the ability to ask, like is commonly done
| during browser-based purchases.
|
| I'm super keen to keep an open dialogue with any developers
| interested in an alternative to how you currently sell your apps
| in iOS so don't hesitate to reach out to me christian at paddle
| com
| mafriese wrote:
| Honestly as a user I will avoid any app that is trying to offer
| me a purchase outside the App Store. Users mostly don't care
| about the issues between the developers and Apple and at least I
| am willing to pay more for my IAPs and be able to use Apple as my
| payment processor (sure - I can pay with Apple Pay but switching
| to another app for paying is a step more than needed).
| mchusma wrote:
| I don't think anyone is objecting to Apple being allowed to
| offer a solution. Most simply want there to be other options
| available to customers.
| malshe wrote:
| The majority of customers don't want the choice.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Isn't everyone here a developer? Aren't you frustrated Apple
| can essentially take 30% of your revenue just for the privilege
| of strengthening their monopoly?
| prepend wrote:
| I'm a user more than I'm a developer. And there's lots more
| users than developers.
|
| I'm going to pay 3-5% for payment processing no matter how I
| look at it. So paying apple 15% to handle that is acceptable
| to me.
|
| It's one of those things that should be cheaper and is too
| much, but better than the alternative.
|
| The payment part is the worst part of the purchase experience
| for me. I play a game that has a Mac version through Epic and
| an iOS version. Buying on iOS is easy, one click. Buying on
| Mac is a pain with some modal web frame pop up to a payment
| processor where I have to enter my payment info every time.
| EVERY TIME! I've already logged in. They know me.
|
| Of course the price to me is the same in both situations.
|
| So alternate payment processors will just be shittier for
| users. Bad UX, riskier data, and the same price.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| It isn't even 30% because you can top up your balance using
| discounted iTunes cards.
| mafriese wrote:
| Well... That's the same amount of money you have to give to
| Google, Microsoft and Amazon if you want to use their
| services. Google and Apple both take 15% if you make less
| than 1.000.000$/year. Again - As a user I also don't have a
| problem with the AppStore monopoly because 1. When I bought
| the device I knew that I can only use the apps that are
| available on the AppStore 2. Every time I open the Microsoft
| Store I'm thankful that the guidelines on iOS are so strict
| 3. Freedom to install everything you ""want"" has at least
| the same amount of bad use cases than good ones (usually it's
| mostly used for modding or piracy).
| madhatte wrote:
| When it comes to Apple privacy trumps ownership/monopoly. Its
| like a benevolent dictator. It can do no bad, if something is
| bad, then actually its good!.
| Razengan wrote:
| Unless you only ever use your own apps and nothing else, some
| of us are also "users" (in the general consumer sense).
|
| Unless you jumped straight from school into a company with
| the goal to make mad money and nothing else, some of us
| became developers precisely because computer technology
| shaped our lives and became our passion.
|
| We want to give our users the best experience possible, and
| don't really care about their email addresses and credit card
| numbers and shit. And Apple's IAP is closest to the ideal
| system:
|
| * Minimal clicks and no jarring exits out of the app into
| third-party websites
|
| * No need to re-enter payment and personal info at multiple
| places
|
| * Biometric verification
|
| * Preserves privacy and protects financial info
|
| * Shows all receipts and subscriptions in one place
|
| Even if Apple took a 50% I would _still_ want the users of my
| app to have access to those benefits, because that's what I
| would like all other devs to give _me_ in _their_ apps.
| moneywoes wrote:
| Effectively 15% for most developers
| giarc wrote:
| The feature list says that Apple doesn't allow "Define your own
| pricing", "Local pricing control", "Subscription pausing",
| "Ability to refund". I don't manage any apps with IAP (or any
| apps for that matter) but I feel like these are all possible with
| Apple.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| One of many. Hope more will come, this space was abandoned after
| facebook platform faded and there are very few competitors.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| > Access to customer data
|
| And here goes one of the reasons Apple wanted control in the
| first place.
|
| This is _not_ a customer friendly change.
| leodriesch wrote:
| Allowing 3rd party payments in apps is a net negative for
| consumers IMO. The current way of paying for in-app content is
| extraordinarily easy and privacy-preserving. Subscriptions are
| listed in one spot and can easily be cancelled from there.
|
| Sure the fee is a bummer, but that's not my problem as a
| consumer. If it makes the subscription more expensive I'll just
| buy it on their website.
|
| But I feel this change will produce all sorts of awful web-hybrid
| user experiences.
| dymk wrote:
| The fee is your problem though. You're paying a 20% premium
| (Apple 30% minus Paddle 10%), because those fees are being
| passed directly on to you.
| fingerlocks wrote:
| Did you miss the very next sentence?
|
| _If it makes the subscription more expensive I'll just buy
| it on their website._
| malshe wrote:
| The vast majority of developers are probably paying 15% to
| Apple and not 30%.
| northerdome wrote:
| I thought this until I tried an app with IAP and wanted a
| refund when it didn't work for me. The developer told me they
| had no way to issue one on their side since I went through IAP.
| Apple support gave me the runaround before eventually saying
| they don't do refunds, even when I showed emails from the
| developer saying they supported refunding me. Apple is not pro-
| consumer.
|
| IAP is convenient, but I don't think Apple is truly motivated
| by the customer as much as they are charging a tax.
| Klonoar wrote:
| So fix refunds instead of making a worse UX.
| arvindrajnaidu wrote:
| Why not just use PayPal Checkout SDK?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-07 23:02 UTC)